[kartik]

I have a $1000 or thereabouts to spend. I have looked long and hard at the sharp dsd player and will probably buy it soon. My only question is whether DSD outputs outweigh DVD-A and DVD-V capability? While multiformat players like the Marantz 8400 are available on A-gon for the same price, is it worth the money to get trapped on SACD/DSD stereo? I plan to largely listen to stereo sound on my headphones so multichannel is not very alluring to me. Nonetheless, this is the last of my savings for my equipment so I need to spend it well. Suggestions requested.

 

[jefemeister]

I know it sounds trite, but it depends on what you plan to listen to. I would forget those formats for now and concentrate on a good CD player. You can get some pretty sweet used players for $1000. Why spend your last grand to play a format that it sounds like you don't even own any media of?

If you have to go new with new formats, I would get a universal and that way you could play everything. At least for the next 6 months.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by jefemeister Why spend your last grand to play a format that it sounds like you don't even own any media of?

Everybody has to start somewhere... I remember the time when I was awaiting my first Hitachi CD player: I only had one King Crimson CD to play at the beginning.

 

[jefemeister]

I guess that's a good point...

 

[kartik]

My main question was whether technically a DSD output is superior to the DVD-A or SACD sound quality from a purist's point of view. If a DSD player was available in this price range would it be worth it?

 

[Orpheus]

an ee student (forgot his name) on this board commented that DSD is technically inferior to DVD-A. the advantage to DSD is that the converters can be made better at lower price points--this gives low cost equipment the ability to produce better sound. however, high quality DVD-A converters are superior to high quality DSD converters. so, if you really care about sound quality, then DVD-A is actually better, if you're willing to buy more expensive equipment. however, SACD is winning the battle-of-the-formats war.... and are gaining popularity. it's hard to find DVD-A's of music you want.

...so, anyway,... there is one VERY important point never mentioned about these comparisons----DVD-A is MUCH better for the musician. you see, most small studios are already equiped with high-resolution PCM equipment, including my own. i have invested A LOT of money in digital equipment that would be rendered worthless if SACD becomes the standard. i mean, $50,000 right down the toilet!

so, DVD-A is technically superior. and DVD-A is better for the small-musician. SACD is more popular because of Sony's deep pockets. it's up to you....

or... the last option, ...just buy a damn normal CD. (please avoid SACD!!!)

 

[raif]

quick! somebody name a format that sony invented that has done more than rob people of thier money.

Beta MAx(yah, I know its a cheap shot)

Mini discs.
I just go the new mars volta on minidisc
oh wait no I didn't

sony is a much better exploiter than an inventor

 

[kartik]

Unfortunately, I didn't get to read Orpheus' post in time. I landed up buying a 2-channel SACD/DSD player from Sharp. I had seen some posts on audioasylum which seemed to suggest that this was what I had been looking for. Moreover having already bought the matching amp earlier,I found it hard to resist. I'll post more info as I get to use the SACD player. I feel silly not taking Orpheus' advice again. (Although last time it didn't work out too badly!) The whole point of this thread was to get info from people with more experience than myself. Anyway...

 

[kartik]

This was why I bit the bullet and went ahead and bought the Sharp player.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hi...es/150317.html

 

[Calanctus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus so, DVD-A is technically superior. and

On what are you basing this assertion? I assume it's not based on actually listening....

 

[kartik]

At that level of resolution, I think it would be hard for even the most particular purist to be objectively pick apart these without letting subjectivity creep in. While my earlier question alludes to differences in qualtiy, the underlying doubts about the availability of software also played a role in my decision to go with SACD. I don't think Orpheus is trying to diss SACD, he is just expressing his preference as a musician for DVD-A

 

[kartik]

I thought I would show everyone an excerpt of the other article that made me give this particular amp-sacd player combo this much importance.
This is from Michael Fremer's Stereophile article, the main selling point being this combinations ability to closely approximate analog sources.


"So much for LP. What about SACD? The Sharp takes the SACD bitstream directly in and amplifies it in the digital domain, so you'd expect the sound to be amazingly pure and transparent.

It was. I auditioned all the SACDs I could get my hands on, including Mobile Fidelity's hybrid of Duke Ellington's Blues In Orbit, and Sony's discs of Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain and Kind of Blue. The results were transcendent. I've heard SACD criticized for being too airy and open—as if that was an artifact of the process and not part of the recording. I don't know if I can agree with that after this audition, in which I A/B'd the Classic LP and Sony SACD of Sketches of Spain. Yes, both were digitized—one before being etched in polycarbonate, one in the SM-SX100—but even taking that into account, they sounded remarkably similar.

In the end, I preferred the SACD to the LP—it was slightly quieter, purer, more three-dimensional. In fact, it was the best playback of Sketches I've heard. I turned the lights out and listened all the way through without growing bored. The amp's rendering of the castanets was absolutely riveting. "

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

On what are you basing this assertion? I assume it's not based on actually listening....

nope, never hear either. i am just saying what an engineer said... you know, those folks that actually DESIGN the damn converters? ...yeah, they probably don't know what they're talking about.... just pulling out stuff from their ass, and leave it up to audiophiles to "listen."

anyway, theoretically both SACD and DVD-A are better than conventional CDs. so, i'm sure the SACD player you bought sounds nice.

...to me though, they all sound the same. i can't tell the difference between recordings i made at 44khz/16bit and 96khz/24bit. but i still record everything at 96/24 just in case.

i think one reason why people like the SACD's and DVD-A's, is not cause either sounds all that different, but that these high resolution CDs have been remastered with better techniques and equipment... not necessarily because of the sampling technology itself.

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus i think one reason why people like the SACD's and DVD-A's, is not cause either sounds all that different, but that these high resolution CDs have been remastered with better techniques and equipment... not necessarily because of the sampling technology itself.

That is an interesting point. If indeed the advent of newer formats make for better recordings, isn't this a good thing? Even if it is an indirect effect?

Oh BTW Dean, the philly audio headamp is really good. You might reconsider calling Jim about the 300b amp now.

 

[Orpheus]

(

...but i got another fancier 300b amp already. it's all good. but i'm glad you enjoy your amp.... by the looks of it, the parts alone must be pretty close to what you paid for it!)